Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: 21pzr

Now for my unadulteredly partisan pitch. As a note to all who enjoy AE, and love to sink all the xAK's you can, remember that the US Merchant Marine (civilians) had a casualty rate for WWII that was only exceeded by the USMC.

The rate for the USN submarine service was by far the highest at about 1 in 5 KIA.

"A total of 52 submarines were lost, with 374 officers and 3,131 enlisted men. These personnel losses represented 16% of the officer and 13% of the enlisted operational personnel . . .

. . . The 52 submarines represented 18% of all submarines which saw combat duty. This loss of 18%, while high in comparison to the losses sustained by other types of ships of the Allied Forces is considered remarkably low when considered in relation to the results achieved, or when compared with the losses sustained by enemy submarine forces."

http://www.valoratsea.com/losses1.htm

Cursory on-line reaearch shows the merchant marine loss rate to be about 3.9%.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

Wow! This thread brings back bad memories of a college sailing trip gone really bad.

Some buddies of mine started a sailing club at our school and received a donated boat from a family friend. I had never sailed before, but went out with them for a test sail on Oneida Lake (a medium-sized but very shallow lake in central New York). We were out for maybe half an hour and the boat capsized, which, as my friends explained, was rather common for a small sail boat like the one we had. As we tried to right the boat, the center board and mast snapped, leaving us with an upside down hull which sank about ten minutes later.

This left us out in the lake with a pretty heavy storm developing, darkness rapidly approaching and no boat. We tried to swim for shore, but got caught in a current that pulled us parallel to shore. We could see the house lights on the shore, but they weren't getting any closer. They were just sliding along to our right. The waves were nuts. With the strong wind and the shallow depth of the lake, they were at least 4 or 5 feet high. I thought for sure we were all goners. That's when the Gordon Lightfoot song started going through my head, especially the line,

When suppertime came the old cook came on deck sayin'.
"Fellas, it's too rough t'feed ya."
At seven pm a main hatchway caved in; he said,
"Fellas, it's bin good t'know ya!"

Darkness came and we all pretty much thought were were fish food. But at what must have been around 10 pm, one of my friends spotted something in the moonlight bobbing up and down a couple of waves over. We swam over toward it and heard a voice calling to us. It was a windsurfer who also got caught out in the storm. His rig was pretty much destroyed, but he still had his board. With the strong waves, he wasn't able to make any progress towards shore alone, but with the four of us holding onto the board and kicking, we finally made it to shore around midnight. (To this day, I am absolutely amazed at how lucky we all were - what were the odds of us drifting to within sight of that guy and his board?!)

We had been in the water for about 7 hours and when I felt that sandy bottom on my toes, I just about cried. It was the best feeling ever! Needless to say, I've never been on a boat out on the water since (and never will be again). And whenever I hear "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald", I get goosebumps!

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: 21pzr

Now for my unadulteredly partisan pitch. As a note to all who enjoy AE, and love to sink all the xAK's you can, remember that the US Merchant Marine (civilians) had a casualty rate for WWII that was only exceeded by the USMC.

The rate for the USN submarine service was by far the highest at about 1 in 5 KIA.

"A total of 52 submarines were lost, with 374 officers and 3,131 enlisted men. These personnel losses represented 16% of the officer and 13% of the enlisted operational personnel . . .

. . . The 52 submarines represented 18% of all submarines which saw combat duty. This loss of 18%, while high in comparison to the losses sustained by other types of ships of the Allied Forces is considered remarkably low when considered in relation to the results achieved, or when compared with the losses sustained by enemy submarine forces."

http://www.valoratsea.com/losses1.htm

Cursory on-line reaearch shows the merchant marine loss rate to be about 3.9%.

American Merchant Marine

Mariners suffered the highest rate of casualties of any service in World War II, but unfortunately, the U.S. Merchant Marine had no official historians and researchers, thus casualty statistics vary.


Service Number serving War Dead Percent Ratio
Merchant Marine 243,000* 9,521** 3.90% 1 in 26
Marines 669,108 19,733 2.94% 1 in 34
Army 11,268,000 234,874 2.08% 1 in 48
Navy 4,183,466 36,958 0.88% 1 in 114
Coast Guard 242,093 574 0.24% 1 in 421
Total 16,576,667 295,790 1.78% 1 in 56

*Number varies by source and ranges from 215,000 to 285,000. War Shipping Administration Press Release 2514, January 1, 1946, lists 243,000
**Total killed at sea, POW killed, plus died from wounds ashore

Isn't the internet great.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

Wow! This thread brings back bad memories of a college sailing trip gone really bad.

Some buddies of mine started a sailing club at our school and received a donated boat from a family friend. I had never sailed before, but went out with them for a test sail on Oneida Lake (a medium-sized but very shallow lake in central New York). We were out for maybe half an hour and the boat capsized, which, as my friends explained, was rather common for a small sail boat like the one we had. As we tried to right the boat, the center board and mast snapped, leaving us with an upside down hull which sank about ten minutes later.

This left us out in the lake with a pretty heavy storm developing, darkness rapidly approaching and no boat. We tried to swim for shore, but got caught in a current that pulled us parallel to shore. We could see the house lights on the shore, but they weren't getting any closer. They were just sliding along to our right. The waves were nuts. With the strong wind and the shallow depth of the lake, they were at least 4 or 5 feet high. I thought for sure we were all goners. That's when the Gordon Lightfoot song started going through my head, especially the line,

When suppertime came the old cook came on deck sayin'.
"Fellas, it's too rough t'feed ya."
At seven pm a main hatchway caved in; he said,
"Fellas, it's bin good t'know ya!"

Darkness came and we all pretty much thought were were fish food. But at what must have been around 10 pm, one of my friends spotted something in the moonlight bobbing up and down a couple of waves over. We swam over toward it and heard a voice calling to us. It was a windsurfer who also got caught out in the storm. His rig was pretty much destroyed, but he still had his board. With the strong waves, he wasn't able to make any progress towards shore alone, but with the four of us holding onto the board and kicking, we finally made it to shore around midnight. (To this day, I am absolutely amazed at how lucky we all were - what were the odds of us drifting to within sight of that guy and his board?!)

We had been in the water for about 7 hours and when I felt that sandy bottom on my toes, I just about cried. It was the best feeling ever! Needless to say, I've never been on a boat out on the water since (and never will be again). And whenever I hear "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald", I get goosebumps!

quote:

ORIGINAL: 21pzr

While I don't disagree with Bullwinkle about the high loss rate in the sub service, remember that they were in the Navy, while every single merchant mariner lost was a civilian, including those who chose to make the Murmansk or Malta runs several times, and many who were torpedoed more than once.

True. And many/most in the Navy were drafted, and then volunteered for subs. Merchant sailors, to be fair and complete, got union wages and benefits, unlike the gun crews on many of the vessels. The history of the thing isn't complete without that. And if a merchant mariner thought the run was too dangerous he could stay home. Navy sailors didn't have that option.

My point about sub figures is only to point out that agglomerations of stats can cause odd conclusions to be reached. If you put sea-going USN to sea-going MM the comparison changes a lot. If you only complare those on combatants it changes once again.

I'm not sure what you are referring to as the "military equivalent of the merchant marine", as only those ships that were classed as "AP" or "AK" were naval vessels with Navy crews, and these were in combat situations,

At the end of the run, sometimes. Other times they were off-loading at islands and bases already taken. And the IJN had no submarine threat to compare to the U-Boat war. MMs on Liberty and Victory ships making runs from the WC to the war zone were mostly very safe, as were the Navy crews. Not at all like the Atlantic.

as mdiehl says, without much hope of hitting back. Every other cargo and passenger ship ("xAK and xAP") were manned by civilian mariners, who put themselves in harms way many times. All of the services quoted by Oldman had enormous logistical tails, while every merchant mariner was on a ship.

Tails largely provided by the Navy. I ack. that, but I point out that skews the stats.

It took until the 80's before there was any action taken to grant merchant mariners who served in WWII veteran status.

A political issue not related to my points. IMO it would have been better to have drafted the MM and integrated them into the War Dept. But as I'm sure you are more familiar than am I, there were massive politcal forces at work to protect the union status of MMs during the war. It got very messy.

As for Maine Maritime Academy, no it is not federally funded, nor are the other state maritime academies (Great Lakes, New York, Massachussets, Texas A&M, California), which are great institutions that provide quality graduates to the merchant marine every year. My point is that none of the other federal service academies (West Point, Annapolis, Air Force, or Coast Guard) ever sent undergraduates to war,

But they did change the program to three years. And USNA midshipmen do full summers at sea in I believe two of the years. I'd have to check, but I'd bet some were on ships in war zones during Korea and/or Vietnam.


and were not granted a Battle Standard by the DOD, which displays the battle ribbons won by the undergraduates.

I myself was an undergraduate cadet during the Vietnam war, and sailed ships into that war zone, and more recently did the same during the first Gulf war, and came under SCUD fire in the port of Dammam. I have great respect for our armed forces, and the men and women who serve, but would only like recognition of those of us who help them do their job by bringing the bullets and beans, trucks and tanks. I am proud of my Vietnam and Desert Storm campaign ribbons, and it was only my wife's reasoning that it was a young man's place that kept me from going back to the Gulf for Iraqi Freedom. I'm way too old to be sitting on 30,000 tons of explosives. Read "Sailing into the Abyss" about the trials of the SS Badger State during Vietnam, to learn about merchant seamen carrying war materials (explosives).

I'm happy you served. I have no problem calling you a veteran. I only want to compare your experience in Vietnam to my OCS instructor, who as a BM3 drove a barge loaded with 30,000 gallons of avgas in rubber bladders up the Perfume River into Hue during the Tet Offensive, taking small arms fire and RPGs from the shoreline. He joined the Navy to avoid the draft, and in 1968 was making $238.50 per month. So it's relative.

Thanks to all our veterans, from all wars, and to our current service personnel, for a job well done.

From me as well.

Bill

quote:

In 2005 NOAA and the NWS ran a computer simulation, including weather and wave conditions, covering the period from November 9, 1975 until the early morning of November 11.[96] Analysis of the simulation showed that two separate areas of high wind appeared over Lake Superior at 4:00 p.m. on November 10. One had speeds in excess of 43 knots (80 km/h; 49 mph) and the other winds in excess of 40 knots (74 km/h; 46 mph).[97] The southeastern part of the lake, the direction in which the Fitzgerald was heading, had the highest winds. Average wave heights increased to near 19 feet (5.8 m) by 7:00 p.m., November 10, and winds exceeded 50 mph (43 kn; 80 km/h) over most of southeastern Lake Superior.[98]

The Fitzgerald sank at the eastern edge of the area of high wind[99] where the long fetch, or distance that wind blows over water, produced significant waves averaging over 23 feet (7.0 m) by 7:00 p.m. and over 25 feet (7.6 m) at 8:00 p.m. The simulation also showed one in 100 waves reaching 36 feet (11 m) and one out of every 1,000 reaching 46 feet (14 m). Since the ship was heading east-southeastward, the waves likely caused the Fitzgerald to roll heavily.[100]

At the time of the sinking, the ship Arthur M. Anderson reported northwest winds of 57 mph (50 kn; 92 km/h), which matches the simulation analysis result of 54 mph (47 kn; 87 km/h).[100] The analysis further showed that the maximum sustained winds reached near hurricane force of about 70 mph (61 kn; 110 km/h) with gusts to 86 miles per hour (75 kn; 138 km/h) at the time and location where the Fitzgerald sank.